Posts in "Domestic Policy"

As you may know, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause states that the federal government may not establish a national religion. How has this simple statement gone from beautifully liberating to increasingly tyrannical?

The Establishment Clause was added into the Constitution so that the new government could not create a national religion, and to ensure that the requirements to hold office would not be restricted by religious affiliation. Today, however, the Establishment Clause restricts the expression of religious beliefs as far as the tax dollar can see. Schools, hospitals, and many other government-subsidized entities — along with private organizations such as churches — have been under assault thanks to failed analysis of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. — Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

One would think that the rules spelled out in the Constitution — simple, easy rules written to restrain the then new, federal government — would be familiar to federal agents. But that might be asking too much, right?

Apparently, the CBP checkpoint I drive through is for "suspicion-less detention;" at least that's what the agent told me. Watch the video:

Federal usurpation of power will continue unabated unless people check that illegitimate power.

It is fair to say that in recent weeks conservatives and supporters of reasonable immigration reform have become increasingly pessimistic about the direction of the bill based on the compromises Republicans have made in the Senate. Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I am confident that the chances of passing a high-quality immigration reform bill are still very high.

There is no denying the bill that has emerged from the Senate is absolutely not what conservative Americans want, but what everyone needs to understand is that the agreement reached by the so-called "Gang of Eight" was more about political theater than it was about producing a piece of legislation that had any chance of becoming law.

Put yourself in the position of a Republican senator from a moderate state who must make a decision on the immigration reform bill. You know that passing a bill that requires border security prior to any immigration reforms going into effect will never pass the Democrat-led Senate on the first try. You would also know that any attempt to push through a liberal immigration reform bill, one where border security is not a trigger for the legalization process to begin, will ultimately be shot down in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives — and that any attempt to block any immigration reform from happening will be a colossal political failure given that the vast majority of Americans support action being taken immediately.

The Georgia Department of Driver Services plans to amend its Rules and Regulations, Ch. 375-2-3-.02, regarding "Special Prestige License Plates" (also known as "vanity plates") to prohibit any references to guns on the plates.

When I looked up the state constitution of Georgia, I discovered that there is indeed a bill of rights section which contains a right to keep and bear arms (Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII) as well as protections for the freedom of speech (Paragraph V). Of course, government agencies motivated by a desire to impose politically correct speech codes, especially in reference to guns, are unlikely to let inconvenient documents like constitutions stand in the way of their ambitions.

It is revealing that the agency seeks to include guns with a set of items or activities that conventionally draw disapproval, such as alcohol, profanity, drugs, and sexual themes. How is it that a gun, which is a tool that saves lives, has come to be regarded as something obscene? When did this cultural shift take place and who stands to gain from it?

In the spirit of compromise, though, liberty activists should offer a counter-proposal to the Georgia Department of Driver Services: just get rid of license plates altogether, vanity and otherwise. Sure, the agency stands to lose some of its beloved revenue and a convenient tool for tracking citizens' lives, but that is why they call it "compromise." At least no one on the road will feel scandalized by anything they see on the tags.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords recently visited New Hampshire asking for politicians to display what she called "courage" in passing expanded gun control laws. Courage!? Talk about an invasion of Orwellian newspeak into the public discourse.

Those who promote gun control legislation usually argue that they seek to "enhance public safety," or to "protect the children," or some similar paternalistic sentiment. Giffords' call for "courage" is truly ironic given that gun control proponents are, at base, motivated by the irrational fear that somewhere, somehow a gun might be misused. And, of course, Giffords' allies believe that only governmental action can rescue citizens from the risk of gun-related violence. It's doubly shameful that Giffords issued her call to (no) arms in New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" State.

The recipe for true courage in the realm of the Second Amendment issue is this: Remind the public that government as an institution cannot possibly protect everyone at all times and in all places. It's a bad idea to even wish that government could accomplish such a feat, since that level of omnipotence would be indistinguishable from a police state.

It's called "self-defense" for a reason, after all. Life in a free society requires personal responsibility and even a willingness to endure exposure to a certain level of risk; true courage resides in facing this reality, not in pleading with politicians to help evade it.

Fighting a speeding ticket in the court system may not rise to NSA-whistleblower-level drama, but Keith Ledgerwood is a 29 year old who is doing more than his part in carving out a space for freedom.

Prosecutors in Indian Hill, Ohio have appealed three times thus far in their efforts to stick Ledgerwood with the $95 ticket, and he's won against them each time. The case is next expected to hit the Ohio Supreme Court, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer's Kimball Perry.

Ledgerwood's case serves as an effective "teaching moment" for the public by exposing the essentially vindictive nature of the myriad low-level commissars who citizens must face every day. Prosecutor Don Crain tellingly stated, "we feel obliged to support the officers...what would your solution be? Just to let this guy off the hook again?" Crain's quote reveals that it's not about the money the ticket represents, it's about the power that's at stake. Indian Hill's efforts are aimed at discouraging anyone else from similarly putting up a fight in the future.

This case forces the city government to spend its time and resources in litigation. Hopefully, this will keep them busy so that they can't harass the rest of the citizens in that jurisdiction.

Even if Ledgerwood ultimately loses, he's done us all a great service by showing that resistance is possible (and maybe even fun, too). Stay tuned.

So, let's see if we can get this straight: Auto manufacturers are producing more fuel efficient vehicles due to a combination of market demand and government regulation. Now, states like California and Virginia are raising taxes and fees on the people who have bought the efficient vehicles they were "supposed" to buy. What will this do other than return to the people some of the financial burden they rid themselves of by driving more efficient cars?

Does this image look familiar? You’ve probably seen countless posters, fliers, graphics, posts, and billboards like this. What a wonderfully persuasive and cogent argument, right? Once all of the prongs of this airtight case are disseminated, we will win the day on this issue! The recent passages of medical marijuana legislation are a step in the right direction, right? Well, I’m afraid not. The horrible truth here is that these types of messages actually do nearly irreparable harm to the cause of liberty and if we are to effectively carry our position forward, this is precisely the sort of paradigm and reasoning that must be discarded.

In a curious action, the Obama Administration recently announced that it is waiting until 2015 to enforce the employer mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This requires employers to provide health insurance for employees if they have over 50. This mandate was initially set to be implemented in 2014. The reasons stated for the delay is to provide time to simplify the reporting requirements and to adapt health coverage and reporting systems. However, there may be another reason for this that no supporter of the ACA would ever admit to.

Even the most casual student of economics can realize that forcing employers to provide health coverage if they have over a certain number of employees creates an incentive for them to have one less employee than that number.

Clearly, this limits the desire of entrepreneurs to expand and increase employment, and it provides an overall stunt in growth. It also greatly increases the incentive for employers to shift employees to being part time rather than full time in order to avoid the employer mandate. Such effects have arguably already begun happening.

At a time when unemployment is decreasing at a very slow rate and the economy is relatively stagnant, the employer mandate could cause for a reversal in employment numbers that would tarnish Obama’s already questionable legacy.

The biggest concern is that this over-the-top spending is not necessary and would largely benefit defense contractors who are looking for more opportunities as the U.S. reduces its presence in Afghanistan.